Engineering Schools Dominate 'Unhappiness' List

In a list of the "least happy students" published in The Princeton Review's 2012 edition of the "Best 376 Colleges" last week, six of the seven unhappiest colleges were schools predominantly made up of engineering students. Only one engineering school -- Franklin Olin W. College of Engineering in Needham, Mass. -- made the top 20 "happiest students" list.

We've cited these lists in previous years and, unfortunately, the results have always been the same. In 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012, at least five of the 10 unhappiest were engineering schools. In three of the last five years, only one engineering school made it to the top 10 of the "happiest" list. In the other two years, no engineering schools made it.

So, yes, there appears to be a trend. When you ask 120,000 students a year for their opinion (as The Princeton Review does), and you keep getting the same results, it's safe to say there must be a reason for it.

The larger question, though, is whether it matters. It's not hard to imagine that many engineers, as they read these words, are grumbling, "You mean they're supposed to be happy? They get a good education and have the best job prospects of any students in the American educational establishment, and they're supposed to be happy, too?"

Truth be told, that's an excellent point. Engineering students get great job offers for the same reason that they're unhappy -- because they work so hard in school. If you don't believe that, then take a look at another Princeton Review list: In a category called "students study the most," engineering cleans up. The top three "study" schools -- Harvey Mudd College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Franklin W. Olin College -- are all engineering schools. Students in those institutions are said to study more, on the whole, then students at Harvard, Princeton, or Yale.

The fact is, it's difficult to disconnect the hard work from the job success. Many corporations seek engineering students because they know they'll work hard. Few prospective employers are likely to scroll through The Princeton Review's list of "party schools" when they're looking for great places to recruit.

Having said that, it's also important to note that all is not perfect on the engineering education front. Engineering schools have traditionally blamed their situation on the woeful state of K-12 science education in this country, but there's more to it than that. In many engineering schools, administrators still make no effort to link theoretical classes to real-world engineering during the initial semesters. Students often spend two years taking calculus, physics, thermodynamics, circuit analysis, fluid mechanics, and strength of materials before they get to think about an engineering problem. This raises a question: Are the administrators even talking to the students?

And then there are the professors: Some prefer research to teaching; many struggle with English; others don't seem to care about making a real effort to communicate with students.

"There's reason to believe that some university professors aren't adapting their methods to the teaching of kids," Ray Almgren, vice president of product marketing for National Instruments and a member of the company's academic relations team, told me. "It's unfortunate, because we've seen great results when professors make that effort to connect."

Is it any wonder then that many big schools have washout rates ranging from one half to two thirds? Sure, we all know that a certain percentage of incoming freshmen aren't well suited to the rigors of an engineering curriculum. But two thirds?

Some schools are proving that students can be happy and that profs can communicate. Three engineering colleges -- Olin, Harvey Mudd, and Rose-Hulman Institute -- managed to land on a Princeton Review list called "professors get high marks." It's especially interesting to note that Mudd and Olin made this list, even while being included at the top of the "students study the most" category.

So, yes, it's possible to connect with engineering students and make them work hard. No one's suggesting that we need to see engineering colleges on the "party school" list.

I wonder if the "unhappiness" quotient directly translates to how post-graduate engineering students will feel about their jobs. Long hours and poor communication with management are likely conditions that will carry over to the real world as those are some of the constant struggles of engineering management.

The point about the curriculum being theoretical and not tied to real-world engineering problem solving is one I've heard consistently, but I was under the impression that a lot of the leading schools were implementing changes to provide a more hands-on experience. Is that not the case?

Students at Olin have very good reasons to be happy. For starters, their tuitions are fully covered by the Olin Foundation. Also thery are in very small classes. I have been able to take some night classes there as a part of a commmunity program (Needham, Mass.) and Olin seems to encourage students to study creatively, and in a sense pursue their dreams. You see a lot of interesting projects in the classrooms and hallways. And yes, the students are smiling.

In answer to your question, Beth, some of the well known engineering schools have taken the lead on this and are incorporating more of a sense of context into the early part of the engineering curriculum. To name just a few: MIT; University of Texas; Olin College of Engineering; and Rose-Hulman Institute. Still, I'm told that far too many engineering schools are making token efforts or no effort at all in this area. I think there's still a sense -- somewhat justified -- that efforts on this front can only go so far; students will always find the curriculum difficult.

In going through four years of engineering school, I can understand how engineering schools can be on the top of unhappiest students. Spending weekends in the computer lab to get projects done can be tiresome. On the other side, this was something that was enjoyed by my fellow students and I.

As for real world application of engineering principles. This was not seen or emphasised until the final senior project, and this was really a canned project. I learned almost as much my first year on the job as I learned in four years in college.

For challenging curriculums like engineering, it can be easy to lose sight of the goal. When you're going from semester to semester, the goal is not to earn high grades on the final. The goal is to learn. That's a pretty diffuse reward for four years of hard work, which was preceded by 12 years of the same sort of effort.

I took Mechanical Engineering at the University of BC in Vancouver many years ago. No, it wasn't fun. I was a hick from the sticks in a university that didn't know a thing about the industrial engine that drove the Province that in turn fed the university--Forestry and Mining. I couldn't understand why all my classmates seemed hell-bent on getting into designing gas turbine blades for P&W on the other side of the continent while my professors were more interested in what they were going to do on their summer holidays. There were only 3 or 4 kids in my year of over 60 ME students who even knew what sawmills and pulpmills where all about. Zero work on BC-related industrial issues. I had many conversations with the ME dean about this lack of local connectivity...maybe it helped; in my last year they had hired a new prof who was interested in analyzing bandsaw blade dynamics...finally something that related to what we did in BC! Industry donated him a brand new 5' bandmill to set up in his lab.

There were some minor attempts at getting the real world into the classroom. In our last year, the course I enjoyed the most was was an engineering design course that focussed less on the math and science behind a project and more on how sucessful the end result was. Which, of course, is real life. It was a huge eye opener for me in terms of who was sucessful in this course. Usually the class brains fell FLAT on their face in this class. It was my turn to excel for a change.

I think the issue boils back to the course material that the school has chosen to present. We, as many other schools, spent way too much time with advanced calculus and other courses that were forgotten once the final exam was over. As kids in school, most of us were not so dumb that we didn't know the material was a waste of time. Does jumping through administratively pontificated mind-numbing hoops make anyone happy?

I always said, the best thing about university was to "have the sheepskin in your hand and the university in your rear view mirror." I never even went back to attend graduation ceremonies.

I would have concurred with the Princeton survey when I was in engineering school simply by comparing demands on my time as compared to others around me. A desire to excel in Engineering left little time for "fun". Hearing about the great times people were having while I was buried in a book was disheartening.

In my professional life I have found that I am generally more satisfied with my work than my colleagues from other departments.I suspect if the Princeton survey followed its subjects into the working world the happiness result would be flipped.

I see that student life at my alma matter (Illinois Institute of Technology) is improving. When I was a student there, we were number six on the list of least happy students. Now we're only number nine. Things must be getting better!

Seriously, I had a great time as an engineering student. In fact, it was one of the happiest times of my life. Sure, I worked hard - but if I didn't want to work hard, I wouldn't have gone into engineering in the first place.

On the other hand, my college experience was definitely non-traditional. For one thing, I was a little older than the typical student - I was 23 when I transferred into IIT from a community college. By this point in life, I had a little more maturity and a stronger sense of purpose. I didn't have any illusions that I was going to college to party.

Also, I lived off campus with my family, so I never set foot in a dormitory or ate in a cafeteria, never had roomates (other than my parents and my niece), etc. Having a stable environment, surrounded with people who wanted to see me succeed, was very important. Also, having to balance schoolwork with family responsibilities helped to keep me grounded.

My social life was also mainly off campus. For the most part, the friends I hung out with on the weekend (when I had time to hang out on the weekends!) were old friends from my high school days. Like my family, my friends were a big support to me.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, I worked full-time off campus as a technician in a failure analysis lab, so I was constantly exposed to "real world" engineering. My co-workers were another source of encouragement and support, as well as professional mentoring and practical advice. And every day I saw how the things I was learning in school could be applied.

So maybe the problem is not with engineering schools themselves, but with the traditional conception of the college experience and the expectations created by popular culture. Anyone who goes to engineering school expecting to party all the time is going to be very disappointed, or else flunk out in the first two years. But if that's your idea of happiness, maybe your shouldn't be in engineering.

Dave: What a coincidence. My Alma matter is also IIT. Was I happy?, Sure from the point of view of education and instructional benefits I received while at IIT. Worked hard in just about 2.5 years, after my master, I got my Ph.D. in mechanical. I could be happier, if the professors were not so strict. But then there is this trade-off. You got to make compromises if you want a good education. I have seen few, who did not put enough time has had difficulties in finding good jobs. It pays to work hard. It pays to be little unhappy. At the end it is you, who needs to decide “why are you are there”?; “what you want to achieve in your life?” It is that balance that makes the difference.

I had a some of my best times being a tech student at URI and MIT. Clearly URI was much friendlier, but also less stressfull. It all depends on hw you establish yourself. Do not be a jerk. Try to find nice and reliable friends to study with and keep some time for relaxation. Make sure you take classes from other departments to learn other things in addition to numbers and formulas.

I got involved in robotics and had the best time in the lab.

Clearly that engineering is not easy, but I did not see too many unhappy students.

If you’re developing an embedded monitoring and control application, then you’ll want to take note of the upcoming Design News Continuing Education Center class, “Embedded Development Using Microchip Microcontrollers and the CCS C Compiler."

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.